Monday, June 20, 2016

Leading Brexit campaigners have drafted plans for an Australian-style, points-based immigration system, should the UK public vote to leave the European Union (EU). A referendum will be held in Britain on 23 June to enable voters to decide whether to remain in the EU or 'Brexit'- the name given if Britain leaves the EU.

However, it's worth pointing out that the UK immigration system currently operates a points-based system which includes various tiers including the Tier 2 visa and Tier 1 visa tier. It's unclear exactly how the 'new' points-based system will differ from the current one. What we can tell you is that the right to enter the UK will be based on 'skills,' according to a report published by the Huffington Post.

A joint statement from Brexit supporters, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Priti Patel, and Gisela Stuart outlined plans for a UK immigration system that would 'mark the end of the automatic right of EU citizens to come and live and work in the UK.

The statement said: "By the next general election, we will create a genuine Australian-style points-based immigration system. The automatic right of all EU citizens to come to live and work in the UK will end, as will EU control over vital aspects of our social security system.

EU citizens will be subject to legislation made by those we elect in Westminster, not in Brussels. We could then create fairness between EU citizens and others, including those from Commonwealth countries."

There have been record increases in UK immigration because the UK economy is doing well and is actually doing much better than much of the EU. High levels of immigration to the UK is a sign of success. People want to come to the UK because there are more jobs in the UK. The Telegraph has recently commented that David Cameron has "unleashed this job-creating beast of an economy".

Immigration has been a major issue in the European Union Referendum campaign. if Britain chooses to leave the EU there may be lower levels of immigration, but the economy is likely to suffer. Perhaps that is a price that people will be prepared to pay. We will see on 23 June 2016.

The 'new' UK Immigration points-based system

Under the 'new' UK immigration system, applicants seeking to live and work in the UK would be assessed based on their skills and qualifications 'without discrimination on the grounds of nationality.'

The statement said: "To gain the right to work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those who come have the ability to speak good English. Such a system can be much less bureaucratic and much simpler than the existing system for non-EU citizens."

UK immigration has been a key focus of the 'Leave' and 'Remain' referendum campaigns, and with less than two weeks to go until voters take to the polls, the Leave campaign has finally unveiled its blueprint for controlling UK borders in the aftermath of an EU exit.

77,000 EU migrants entered Britain in 2015

According to the Brexit campaign statement, around 77,000 EU migrants arrived in the UK in 2015. The statement also claimed voting to Remain in the EU and continuing to allow free movement in the UK would cause problems for the UK. The "Leave" campaign says that staying in the EU would affect school class sizes, wages, public services, the NHS and the security of the UK.

Brexit campaigners mentioned the 'ongoing tragedies in the Mediterranean' as a demonstration of how badly the EU is struggling to cope with mass migration and freedom of movement.

The statement said: "Should the UK remain in the European Union, migration and the Mediterranean death toll is only going to worsen as immigrants attempt to reach Britain."

Additionally, Johnson, Gove, Patel and Stuart were quick to make reference to the Conservative Party's election pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, a commitment the government has fallen well short of. Johnson, Gove, Patel and Stuart said that the failure to meet this pledge is evidence alone highlighting the need for change.

"This promise is plainly not achievable as long as the UK is a member of the EU and the failure to keep it is corrosive of public trust in politics," said Johnson, Gove, Patel and Stuart.

Safer, more humane UK immigration policy according to Brexit Campaign

The four are of the opinion that should the UK back exiting the EU, 'a new, safer and more humane immigration policy should be implemented as swiftly as possible.' The four believe that such plans would be 'widely accepted by British society.'

The new immigration policy wouldn't affect Irish nationals or EU citizens who are already lawfully resident in the UK. Those EU citizens legally in the UK will be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK automatically under the new system.

However, legal changes would be put in place to make it easier to deport criminals and other persons 'whose presence in the UK is not in the best interests of the UK public,' according to the statement.

The Brexit immigration policy would mean that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights to UK law would no longer apply to UK Law. Johnson, Gove, Patel and Stuart said: "A combination of these measures would allow, 'for the first time in a generation', politicians to 'keep their promises on migration'."

"We will welcome new citizens who wish to contribute to our society, as so many immigrants have done and we will be able to remove those who abuse our hospitality," they said.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Remain contingent criticised the Brexit immigration policy. The executive director of Britain Stronger in Europe, Will Straw, said: "The proposed points-based system could lead to higher levels of immigration. This system will not work. Vote Leave's proposal could put up immigration and it would wreck our economy, as it involves leaving Europe's Single Market."

"Australia, who have a points based immigration system, have twice as many migrants per head as the UK. Economic experts are agreed that leaving the Single Market would lead to recession - costing jobs and raising prices," Straw added.

Comments from Anti-Immigrant Migration Watch UK

Even the anti-immigrant, group, Migration Watch UK – which campaigns for stricter limits on immigration to the UK - said in a 2014 press release that an Australian-style points system would be 'totally unsuitable' for Britain.

In response to Vote Leave's proposed immigration policy, Migration Watch UK stated that a 'work permit for all migrants would be simpler and less bureaucratic, resulting in a reduction in migration numbers.'

Chairman of Migration Watch, Lord Green, said: "Work permits for all, EU and non-EU, is the way forward. This would preserve access to the skills our economy needs while reducing the population pressures which are simply getting out of hand."

Australian immigration system

Australia has become notorious for its tough stance on immigration and has been criticised for locking up refugees for long periods of time. According to the Huffington Post, Australia operates a "hybrid" selection system for skilled migrants that includes both a points-based system and employer sponsorship options.

The country is also known to detain migrants in detention centres should they overstay their visa, violate their visa conditions or remain despite having their visa cancelled. They even detain those refused entry at Australia's various ports.

Monday, June 13, 2016

At a press conference held in Mexico City, the Binational Coalition Against Donald Trump provided details on how Mexican civil immigrant-support organisations on both sides of the border are preparing to tackle the threats they see linked to Donald Trump's presidential candidacy as the Republican representative.

The Coalition centres on making up for a perceived lack of action by authorities on matters important to immigrants and their families in both the United States and Mexico. It consists of a collective of primarily migrant- and migration-centred civil organisations brought together in the Mexican capital by the Binational Aztlán Migrants Organisation; Aztlán being an indigenous name for Mexico City.

Trump against immigration

Reading from the press bulletin she had prepared and distributed, Maria García, founding member of both organisations and herself a Mexican immigrant to the United States, declared: "The Donald Trump phenomenon has permeated a part of the North American population through a campaign project specifically designed and clinically executed by a businessman with perfect knowledge of how to target the sector of society that is a part of the North American population that is in disagreement and is unsatisfied with its present government. Donald Trump makes promises that he knows he cannot fulfil upon gaining the presidency."

García went on to recount some of the "promises" that Trump has made in recent months that he will have difficulty keeping: the construction of a border wall to be paid for by the Mexican government, the deportation of millions of migrants, the blocking of money sent back to families, the elimination of the free trade agreement, the denial of American nationality to immigrants' children, and the punishment of women who choose abortion.

"Hate and racism" towards immigrants and others

The Coalition says that the Trump campaign deliberately uses a "discourse of hate and racism" to purposefully polarise the community, explained Carlos Arango, the executive director of the migrant defence organisation, Casa Aztlán, in Chicago. He also said that the Trump campaign also persecuted "workers, women, African Americans and the gay community."

Arango recognised that the Trump campaign's discourse had led to a "unification and organisation of ethnic groups" to oppose him and that distinct communities are organising themselves and collectively as direct result of that discourse and directly "against his racist politics."

When asked about Trump's previous competitors in the Republican presidential contests, Arango was quick to label Texas senator Ted Cruz as "even worse [than Trump], as his policies are pretty much the same as Trump's but he is actually a politician. He has a political background and experience. The only difference is he is not a big-mouth or clown like Trump."Discussing Bernie Sanders, one of Trump's Democratic opponents, Arango praised Sanders as "the candidate of the young. His language is aimed at the young voter calling for more jobs, more chances to go to university." Sanders, a junior senator for the state of Vermont is running on a self-proclaimed socialist stance and openly supports and has proposed in detail a universal health service.

Pro-Immigrant Groups protest action against Trump

The Coalition will oppose Trump through actions and protests to be undertaken in the coming months: "We insist on reiterating that we realise the electoral power we have as Mexicans abroad and that we use the Latin vote to make sure Donald Trump does not get to the presidency of the United States."

Reference was made to the successful protest at the University of Illinois at Chicago on 11 March 2016 that led to the cancellation of a Trump rally that had attracted thousands of supporters but was abandoned before it began after fighting between Trump fans and young, anti-Trump, immigrant protesters.

The expression of this message took place most forcefully in the form of protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City held on the traditional Mexican bank holiday the fifth of May, a date highly celebrated as being that on which the Mexican army repelled the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862.

In Chicago, a large-scale march is planned alongside the trade workers, unions, human and civil rights organisations. The Mexican and Latino pro-immigration protesters are uniting under the slogans: "No Trump, No Walls" and "We are not what Donald Trump says we are", as a response to Trump's intention to build the border wall and his continued claim that Mexican immigrants in the U.S. are rapists, drug-traffickers and criminals.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Immigrants in Britain are better educated than the natives, official statistics reveal, with more than half of all foreign-born residents in the UK educated to degree level.

This is the highest proportion in Europe, with Ireland having the next highest share - at 44 per cent.

Of the total UK population, less than one in three people went through higher education, which ranks us seventh in Europe.

Of the 35 regions with the highest share of university-educated foreign residents, only two are from outside of the UK - the Bulgarian region hosting the capital, Sofia, and the Romanian capital of Bucharest.

Britain has all of the top fifteen, according to figures released by Eurostat for 2011, the last year for which data is available.

﻿

Four of the top five regions are in Scotland, with North Eastern Scotland, hosting the oil city of Aberdeen, topping the list. More than four in five foreign-born residents there have received higher education.

Among the other major players in the EU, Britain is the only one where the migrants are better educated than the locals.

﻿

The figures are interesting as immigration dominates the debate about Britain's EU membership.

Many people who are unhappy about current levels of immigration are concerned about what they see as the arrival of low-skilled migrants.

Leave campaigners argue that net migration to the UK - currently standing at 330,000 per year - needs to be reduced.

They have stated preferences for an "Australian-style points system" to reduce low-skilled European migration that they say is draining public services and forcing down wages for the lowest paid jobs.

﻿

Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, suggests that the reality is that many migrants are highly-qualified but struggle to find jobs that match their skills.

"It remains difficult for foreign-born residents to convert their educational attainment into occupations typically associated with higher qualifications," they said, adding "a considerable proportion of foreign-born residents may be overqualified in their jobs".

Saira Grant is Chief Executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), which ran the 'I am an immigrant' campaign to celebrate immigrants' contribution to society. She responded to the findings:

"This confirms that EU migrants are in the main highly skilled and an asset to our economy. They have helped our economic recovery and we should recognise that their skills are vital to our health service and many other industries.

"In or out of the EU, we will still need foreign workers to fill skill gaps."

At the other end of the spectrum, 95 local areas in Europe - a third of the 280 areas mapped - have no foreign-born people who have received no education, according to Eurostat.

﻿

All of these regions are in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK.

France and Spain have the highest proportion of uneducated migrants, though their statistics are skewed somewhat by dominions in South America and Morocco, not shown on the map, which have higher levels than all of mainland Europe.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

“WE HAVE coral beaches and azure water,” said Mohamed Jameel, a former vice-president of the Maldives, speaking from London, which has neither, on June 1st. “But there is trouble in paradise.” Mr Jameel was speaking alongside Mohamed Nasheed, his country’s first democratically elected president, who was ousted in 2012, jailed on dubious terrorism charges in 2015, allowed to go to London for medical treatment in January and granted asylum on May 23rd. The former rivals, along with other politicians who have fallen afoul of the increasingly repressive current president, Abdulla Yameen, appealed for free and fair elections. That seems an increasingly distant prospect.

An election seems likely enough to happen. But Mr Yameen is preparing for the 2018 campaign not by making his case to the voters, but by banning unauthorised public banners—meaning, in practice, those for any candidate other than himself. Meanwhile, giant billboards depicting a benignly smiling Mr Yameen—alongside the money his government is spending on roads, mosques, football pitches and the like—have begun popping up all over the capital, Malé.

A bill is pending in the legislature that would make defamation a criminal offence (Mr Nasheed’s government decriminalised it in 2009). The government has continued to harass employees of the main opposition-aligned television station, while the country’s largest print newspaper remains shuttered amidst an internecine ownership dispute. The government and opposition remain more divided than ever: a visit from a UN arbitrator in April failed to revive all-party talks, because the opposition insists on the release of political prisoners as a precondition. The government has shown itself in no mood to agree.

Talk of European and Commonwealth sanctions has grown louder, and seems to be driving Mr Yameen into the welcoming arms of China and Saudi Arabia. Right next to the $200m China-Maldives “friendship bridge”, Saudi Arabia is financing a new mosque named for its ruler (King Salman), which can hold 6,000 people. The Saudi Binladin Group, a construction conglomerate headquartered in Jeddah, will build a new passenger terminal for Malé’s international airport. Saudi Arabia has pledged to help Mr Yameen in his perhaps over-ambitious dream of turning the Maldives into a subcontinental Singapore.

But the good governance for which Singapore is renowned eludes Mr Yameen. The economy is wobbly, and increasingly dependent on Chinese package tourists. At least 100 Maldivian jihadists have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq—not much in absolute numbers, but a large per-capita share of the country’s small population. Recently jihadists posted a video of themselves machine-gunning portraits of Messrs Yameen, Nasheed and Maumoon Gayoom, who ruled the country for 30 years and whom Mr Nasheed defeated in the 2008 general election. The prospect of fighters returning terrifies a country dependent on booze-swilling non-Muslim tourists lounging on beaches in skimpy clothes.

Mr Yameen has used laughable terrorism charges to imprison political rivals: first Mr Nasheed, and then last February Imran Abdulla, head of an Islamist party, who had called for calm during a rally in support of Mr Nasheed. Mr Yameen claims to have foiled an attempted coup led by his former defence minister, and narrowly escaped an assassination attempt last September (an explosion on his yacht left him unscathed but injured his wife).

After jailing one former vice-president and driving another into exile, Mr Yameen has governed without a deputy for the past seven months. Hence the steady stream of dissident politicians drifting west. At their gathering last week Mr Nasheed admitted, “Most of us here…have been on different sides of the fence.” That is an understatement. Among those sitting alongside him were not only Mr Jameel, who once called him an “anti-Islamic, Israel-loving traitor to the nation”; but also the brother of Mohamed Nizam, who as defence minister forced him to resign (Mr Nazim himself remains imprisoned in the Maldives); and the wife of Ahmed Adeeb, Mr Yameen’s former vice-president and tourism minister who on June 5th was imprisoned for terrorism. For now this rogue’s gallery seems united in their hatred for Mr Yameen: “The need to restore democracy,” said Mr Jameel, “is more important than our differences.” But should democracy be restored, those differences may come roaring back.

“WE HAVE coral beaches and azure water,” said Mohamed Jameel, a former vice-president of the Maldives, speaking from London, which has neither, on June 1st. “But there is trouble in paradise.” Mr Jameel was speaking alongside Mohamed Nasheed, his country’s first democratically elected president, who was ousted in 2012, jailed on dubious terrorism charges in 2015, allowed to go to London for medical treatment in January and granted asylum on May 23rd. The former rivals, along with other politicians who have fallen afoul of the increasingly repressive current president, Abdulla Yameen, appealed for free and fair elections. That seems an increasingly distant prospect.

An election seems likely enough to happen. But Mr Yameen is preparing for the 2018 campaign not by making his case to the voters, but by banning unauthorised public banners—meaning, in practice, those for any candidate other than himself. Meanwhile, giant billboards depicting a benignly smiling Mr Yameen—alongside the money his government is spending on roads, mosques, football pitches and the like—have begun popping up all over the capital, Malé.

A bill is pending in the legislature that would make defamation a criminal offence (Mr Nasheed’s government decriminalised it in 2009). The government has continued to harass employees of the main opposition-aligned television station, while the country’s largest print newspaper remains shuttered amidst an internecine ownership dispute. The government and opposition remain more divided than ever: a visit from a UN arbitrator in April failed to revive all-party talks, because the opposition insists on the release of political prisoners as a precondition. The government has shown itself in no mood to agree.

Talk of European and Commonwealth sanctions has grown louder, and seems to be driving Mr Yameen into the welcoming arms of China and Saudi Arabia. Right next to the $200m China-Maldives “friendship bridge”, Saudi Arabia is financing a new mosque named for its ruler (King Salman), which can hold 6,000 people. The Saudi Binladin Group, a construction conglomerate headquartered in Jeddah, will build a new passenger terminal for Malé’s international airport. Saudi Arabia has pledged to help Mr Yameen in his perhaps over-ambitious dream of turning the Maldives into a subcontinental Singapore.

But the good governance for which Singapore is renowned eludes Mr Yameen. The economy is wobbly, and increasingly dependent on Chinese package tourists. At least 100 Maldivian jihadists have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq—not much in absolute numbers, but a large per-capita share of the country’s small population. Recently jihadists posted a video of themselves machine-gunning portraits of Messrs Yameen, Nasheed and Maumoon Gayoom, who ruled the country for 30 years and whom Mr Nasheed defeated in the 2008 general election. The prospect of fighters returning terrifies a country dependent on booze-swilling non-Muslim tourists lounging on beaches in skimpy clothes.

Mr Yameen has used laughable terrorism charges to imprison political rivals: first Mr Nasheed, and then last February Imran Abdulla, head of an Islamist party, who had called for calm during a rally in support of Mr Nasheed. Mr Yameen claims to have foiled an attempted coup led by his former defence minister, and narrowly escaped an assassination attempt last September (an explosion on his yacht left him unscathed but injured his wife).

After jailing one former vice-president and driving another into exile, Mr Yameen has governed without a deputy for the past seven months. Hence the steady stream of dissident politicians drifting west. At their gathering last week Mr Nasheed admitted, “Most of us here…have been on different sides of the fence.” That is an understatement. Among those sitting alongside him were not only Mr Jameel, who once called him an “anti-Islamic, Israel-loving traitor to the nation”; but also the brother of Mohamed Nizam, who as defence minister forced him to resign (Mr Nazim himself remains imprisoned in the Maldives); and the wife of Ahmed Adeeb, Mr Yameen’s former vice-president and tourism minister who on June 5th was imprisoned for terrorism. For now this rogue’s gallery seems united in their hatred for Mr Yameen: “The need to restore democracy,” said Mr Jameel, “is more important than our differences.” But should democracy be restored, those differences may come roaring back.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Migration and the movement of people is one of the critical issues confronting the world’s nations in the 21st century. Europe is experiencing its largest inflows of refugees since the Second World War. Countries that were previously welcoming are making entry harder even for the most economically-desirable migrants. It is a tough time for optimists.

New Zealand is an interesting case to consider. It has had very large migration flows in and out for many years.

In the 2013 census more than a million people reported that they were born overseas, just under a quarter of New Zealand’s population of almost four and a half million. The overseas-born figure is 37% in Auckland, the country’s biggest city, making it as diverse as London on this measure. Flows are also diverse: the top five source countries for permanent migrants in 2015 were China, India, the Philippines, Samoa, and South Africa.

On the other side of the departure gate, because of long-running outflows of New Zealand citizens, there are now more than 600,000 New Zealanders living abroad. Around three quarters of this diaspora live in neighboring Australia (population 23 million), which has an open border arrangement with New Zealand dating back to 1973.

New Zealand has done relatively well at avoiding problems associated with poor migrant integration. Integration is promoted through settlement support. There is more intensive support for refugees, but other migrants also have access to high quality information services, and ongoing language and employment programming.

A strong focus on ensuring that economic migrants–those coming for work–have jobs also helps. People who are working settle in more quickly.

But selecting migrants who fit with existing opportunities comes at a price. Almost all of New Zealand’s economic migrants are coming to work in an existing job, which means that they are less likely to disrupt, transform or provoke change. How can a country that is generally friendly to migrants, but likely not their first choice, create greater economic impact through migration?

Every country wants to copy the migrant success stories of the United States: 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. But identifying creative, entrepreneurial people who will create significant future impact isn’t at all easy for immigration systems. Many entrepreneurs fail and world-class innovators do not usually arrive at borders exhibiting quantifiable signs of their later success. (Google founder Sergei Brin came to the US with his parents at the age of six. Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant.)

Yoseph Ayele, the Ethiopian-born founder of KiwiConnect, a startup that helps to build bridges between New Zealand and the world, points out that the entrepreneurs who are making a significant impact on the world today would not have qualified for any of the entrepreneur visas available today when they were beginning their entrepreneurial journeys.

Much of the innovation in immigration selection internationally involves getting third parties to vouch for candidates, relieving immigration bureaucracies of the job. For example, in Canada, prospective immigrant entrepreneurs can invest less if they have the support of local venture capitalists or angel investors.

New Zealand is developing a Global Impact Visa that builds on this idea. It aims to attract high-impact entrepreneurs, investors, and startup teams to launch global ventures from New Zealand, with recommendations from networks being used to help filter potential migrants. The selection mechanism for applicants will itself be co-designed with a private sector partner. More announcements on this scheme are expected shortly.

For New Zealand, existing migration flows have a whole host of benefits. Migrants boost the supply of skilled labour, they provide connections to other countries that would otherwise be even further away, and they make up for the flows of New Zealanders who move elsewhere, especially across the Tasman Sea.

But even with evident benefits, there is still active debate about what immigration policy should be. The best way to reconcile the competing interests involved in immigration is an honest, evidence-based conversation about the choices and the impacts. And that will need to go on for as long as people seek their futures on more distant shores.